To not see how the gov will make any money from taxing private schools?

[AngryHedgehog]

All the other threads seem to have descended into bunfighting over the ethics of the policy, yet I'm not really understanding how this stands to benefit the government as surely they'll be footing the bill for all the kids that move to state schools?

As a disclaimer, I don't have kids and wouldn't be able to afford to privately educate them even if I did, despite earning a half decent salary.

I'm reading that it costs around £7k per pupil per term, so it would take the VAT from around four families to fund each additional child moving to state education.

Given that this may be 4/10 kids in private education moving to state schooling, I don't see how this doesn't create a net loss as there will only be 50% more kids left in private education and there needs to be multiple times that for the VAT increase to foot the bill.

Surely I'm missing something here?

I read an article saying 76% of private schools had indicated they would probs take similar measures if VAT increased - admittedly it's in their interest to fight it.

I just increasingly see this as virtue signalling from Labour as the extra money made from the VAT almost certainly won't cover the increased number of state school pupils, and we'll be left with increasingly overcrowded state schools that no longer have access to the facilities of private schools (playing fields etc) like they used to.

At least the kids whose parents can afford the increase will benefit from smaller class sizes but they were probs already in smaller classes than most state pupils anyway.

Most Private schools do not have the capacity to cut costs. More than that, they are going to have to put up fees regardless of vat as wages, utilities, transport etc costs go up. If they could cut costs they would not have been passing on large increases over the last few years. A few might be able to reduce the impact for one year by reducing any retained capital they have but that would put them in an even more precarious financial situation should numbers drop. A 10% drop in numbers would be sufficient to close the school.

It will more than break even, unless the private schools don’t absorb any of the extra costs at all AND circa 30%+ of pupils leave in the short-mid term.

And even in the extremely unlikely event that both of those occur, the worst case scenario would be basically “as you were” except you now have another 500,000 wealthy British parents who now give a damn about the state of state education who previously didn’t.

Spot on. Even if the VAT policy raised a decent amount of money (which it won’t), throwing money at some state schools will make little difference. Some state schools (not enough) manage to produce excellent outcomes for their pupils, often with lower budgets than some failing schools. Our locally worst performing schools have some of the best facilities and after school provision; things like state of the art sports facilities, recording studios, amazing art blocks, drama provision. The facilities at one state school locally are far better than some of the facilities at nearby private schools.

And?

House prices rise around the best state, they become more inaccessible. And still no extra teachers as no funding

The cost of a £400,000 mortgage repayments would be considerable less that £40,000 Pa

Of course they can cut costs, although some may not able to do so while still holding a significant competitive advantage over the deal offered by nearby state schools. 16 in a class compared to 27 state? Well, just combine a few classes. That’s saved a ton. Free clubs and care until 5pm/6pm? That can go too - there’s another 5% off your costs.

If nothing else, I hope this debate ends the nonsense line that “private schools are better because of the better attitudes pupils and parents have”. No, it’s about money. And to the extent that there is IS an element of academic success that is related to the attitude to learning of the parents and pupils - well those attitudes are also directly linked to socio-economic reality as well. So I hope we don’t have to hear that nonsense again in future at least.

More likely ( and I can say this as a private school pupil who moved to state) the kids who have been private and are well ahead academically will be bored out of their brains and start mucking about. Especially as the discipline is very lac

Well, just combine a few classes. That’s saved a ton. Free clubs and care until 5pm/6pm? That can go too - there’s another 5-10% off your costs.

How do you combine classes when you only have, say, a secondary with 300 pupils in the school - 2 form classes per year group, 22 in each? You also need to offer subject choices so you must maintain sufficient teachers to teach a range of GCSEs and A levels. Even with less subject choice than your average state school your staffing costs are going to be proportionally higher.

Those opting for private school, in my opinion, should have ample room to absorb the unexpected. Allowing 10% for fee increases should be a given, not a buffer. I think buffers for any costs should be more generous the more impactful the loss would be. The loss of a school to a child is extremely impactful – much more so than moving home or not having a holiday or frequent new clothes. If you’re not wholly convinced you can sustain it throughout the entirety of their time at one school, then you shouldn’t do it.

No one knows how much the policy will raise, or indeed whether it will produce a net loss. The IFS report, which the Labour Party are basing their calculations on, has numerous flaws.

They state “Tax revenues are unlikely to change if pupils switch to the state sector as a result of any rise in post-tax fees. This is because any money saved on private school fees would likely be spent on other goods and services, with any reduction in VAT revenues from private school fees effectively cancelled out by increased revenues from VAT on other goods and services.” This will not happen. Money no longer spent on school fees will not all be spent on things subject to 20% VAT. A large chunk will be spent on foreign holidays, savings, pension contributions etc, none of which raise VAT. That needs to be deducted from their calculations.

They also say “our view is that it would be reasonable to assume a range of somewhere between a 3% and 7% fall in private school attendance”. Private school attendance has already fallen almost 3% this year, so their assumptions are already looking shaky.

The IFS figures also don’t take full account of the input VAT which could possibly be claimed under the capital good scheme.

There is no way that the IFS estimates are accurate. We cannot assume that the taxpayer will at least break even.

It’s about time that this ridiculous policy is dropped and everyone could then focus on more pressing matters which affect everyone; NHS, defence spending, crime etc. This policy is detracting from the Labour Party discussing these things, but perhaps that’s the idea.

I do feel for the kids who will have to move and who don’t want to. Maybe it’s the Labour Party’s fault. Or the schools’ fault. Or the parents’ fault.

Either way, it’s not great for kids who are settled, and could be very upsetting for any more fragile kids who moved to private because of bullying, SEN etc. Most kids will adjust but I feel sorry for any children suffering this disruption through no fault of their own. No rubbing my hands with glee here.

Really, have you looked at the state curriculum or know how it works? Where is the evidence private school children are well ahead? GCSEs are not easier than IGCSE, isn’t it the reverse with IGCSE being more flexible. State educated kids do better than privately educated at uni…. And as for lax discipline, no school would get through Ofsted if that was the case.

Maybe Labour could talk about what they are going to do about state schools

This! A million fold.

They state “Tax revenues are unlikely to change if pupils switch to the state sector as a result of any rise in post-tax fees. This is because any money saved on private school fees would likely be spent on other goods and services, with any reduction in VAT revenues from private school fees effectively cancelled out by increased revenues from VAT on other goods and services.”

This must be the most idiotic of assumptions. These are families who don’t have the money to spend on vat on school fees, so why would they have it to spend on vat on other things?

It’s a sensible policy, fiscally as well as morally.

As long as you (and everyone else who supports this policy) is okay with VAT being added to university fees and nursery fees and any other kind of paid-for education.

EHCPs are protected and not included in this.

But many DC with SEN don't have an EHCP. My DC has dyslexia and ADHD and is at a special school for kids with that (and other related) diagnoses. He doesn't have an EHCP, because so far he hasn't needed one. There are probably thousands of DC up and down the country like him who don't have an EHCP, despite obvious and diagnosed need. If all those DC suddenly need to get an EHCP then that will run local councils ragged trying to meet demand. Then there's the fact that EHCPs apparently don't exist in Scotland. I'm hopeful that the SEN argument and the legal push-back from the ISC (Independent Schools Council, who have vowed to take this all the way to the European Court of Human Rights, if necessary), will hold up the passing of this law indefinitely.

Our local council have pretty much said they are rationing EHCPs and it takes over a year to get them processed. Pity Labour aren't saying what they are going to be doing about this

EHCPs apparently don't exist in Scotland

No ‘apparently’ about it; they don’t. They don’t in Wales or NI either.

I think the scope for cost savings is limited unfortunately. At the end of the day, private schools is a significant expense for parents. If the quality falls below a certain level - why pay it?

much better to spend the money on very extensive tuition and term time holidays (missed curriculum can be caught up by tutors and the truancy fees paid).

Either buy / rent a house in an area with an excellent free state school (at significant premium) or continue to tutor heavily throughout. The latter is actually not a bad option- most universities give contextual offers so a heavily tutored child from a bad/average state school will have an advantage compared to pupils from better schools.

also unsure if it will help behaviour. We had appalling teachers in some topics. It seemed that most parents accepted that school time was more of a social, mucking about time and hired tutors in the evening (which became the actual study time).

Spot the person who’s never had chairs thrown at them. There are some state schools where discipline is good (especially the stricter academies and grammar schools) but in general, you can’t compare behaviour between private and state - they are literally in different realms.

Yes I have personal experience of attending both private and state schools and I've had 3 kids go through state schools

I know when I joined year 7 that the work that was being done was identical to what we had covered in years 4/5. I also soon found out that if you knew the answer to anything then the teachers would ignore your raised hand and go through most of the kids that didn't have a clue waiting for them to finally come up with " I dunno" or get the answer wrong When this happens half a dozen times a lesson think of all the time actually wasted when stuff could be taught .

And as for lax discipline. At the private school were were taught to stand when an adult entered the room. The teachers were Ma'am not miss. Stuff like swinging on chairs just didn't happen. One girl was called out in assembly for having been seen eating in the street while wearing uniform. Totally different expectations

It is 100% about attitude. I have worked across the sectors over the years. One private school I taught in had literally no money spent on it (think wearing coats and gloves in mobile classrooms with the snow literally coming in) but behaviour was excellent because the parents supported teachers completely and expected their children to behave. The grammar school I worked in was probably the best behaviour I’ve ever known in a school but it was over 90% Indian parents who treat teachers like gods and education as the single most important thing in their child’s life. In the last state school I worked in (very low socio-economic background) there were plenty of parents and kids with good attitudes but they were heavily disrupted by the roughly third of each class with appalling attitudes to education. You can’t simply chuck them out and get on with teaching the two thirds who want to learn when you’re talking about 10 kids or so. The disruption also doesn’t have to be chair throwing (though I’ve certainly experienced all of that) - it’s low level disruption that’s the worst and usually it’s only a small proportion of the class who engage it but it ruins the lesson for everyone else. In a grammar or private school, the lesson starts a minute after the bell and is focussed until a minute before the bell. That is a battle in your average state school. It’s the nature of comprehensive schooling - the few ruin it for the many.

You’re not making sense. EHCPs won’t be included. Kids in special schools will have EHCPs.

This is an incorrect assumption. Many DC with diagnosed SEN don't have EHCPs. My DC is one of them.

Several posters have mentioned taxing university fees. Tbf, you could easily argue that university is a luxury that should be paid for as such.